[aufde]

My friend plays an all zombie list and has three necromancers. Then my other friend(LightningGus 3) says its cheesy because it has three necromancers. he thinks its too magic heavy. but, all my zombie friend did was raise zombies and cast about three damage spells the entire game.

I don't think this is cheesy, because it wouldn't affect my guys very much. It would be like if he only had one necromancer. the zombies he raises wouldn't do much besides outnumber when hes in combat. It doesn't really do much to me.

I was just wondering what you guys think because we have had discussions between us a couple times.

 

[ozzfan]

I don't think that doing that is cheesy, its one of the biggest strengths undead have, why not use it to its full potential?

 

[DavidWC09]

Three necros isn't too much. Four is too much.

Would someone be upset with three Chaos warriors in a chaos army?

 

[Big_Canadian]

its not cheesy its just unfun. to play against this army would just be boring... there are many ways past it but it is just boring....

 

[aufde]

Three necros isn't too much. Four is too much.

sorry if i wasn't specific enough, but he uses this in 1000 points. he hasn't bought enough zombies yet.

I don't think that doing that is cheesy, its one of the biggest strengths undead have, why not use it to its full potential?

of course you could say this for high elves(or dark elves) with their magic, but that is still cheesy.

 

[DavidWC09]

Are they all lvl 2? If so, that's too much at 1000 pts. Having a competitive or strong magic phase is one thing; having a ridiculously dominant one is another.

 

[aufde]

yeah, theyre lvl 2, but all he does is raise zombies. more zombies aren't very much of a threat when they already outnumber you.

 

[DavidWC09]

What army do you run against him?

 

[The vampire Lestat]

Keep in mind fear or an immence amount of luck is the only way he'll win, and most armies will have something able to ignore pysk, a daemon army would just laugh.
I do the same thing some times with skeletons but I start with a fully kitted 10 man squad and add to them that way all the additions have a full kit too, much better than a hoard of shambling zombies, but yes in a small battle it is diificult to acquire units who won't run away without breaking the points bank.

 

[DavidWC09]

Enough zombies at 1000 pts can do a lot. Rear charges, flank charges, sheer outnumbering. Those little buggers can take down anything once Combat Res swings their way.

 

[Master_Bungle]

I understand that it may not seem cheesy because he is not casting damaging spells, but if he summons them carefully, that that will lead to flank/rear charges. It is the type of army that is ridiculasly powerful against some opponents but useless against others (ie. unbalanced). I would imagine he would have more fun (and probably play better) if he made his army better balanced (ie. having less magic and other things besides zombies....).

 

[Visitor Q]

The army isn't cheesy. If its legal, it isn't cheesy. GW has spent the last 10 years making sure that the game is as balanced as it is to prevent "cheesyness".

Basically Cheesyness in its broadest sense takes into account two things
1) Very Powerful, almost unbeatable manipulation of the rules.
2) Going against the general background of the army/warhammer world.

Your oppenents Zombie army is NOT unbeatable merely unconventional
Your oppenents army (and I think this is more important) is not against the background of the army. Zombies are the most common type of Undead footsoldier and it is entirely plausible that a coven of Necromancers would raise a hoard of them.

It gets a bit frustrating when you realise that if you come up wiith an army that is risky (i.e plays well against some armies very badly against others) then it is labelled as cheesy. Every Undead army in the Old World it seems has its bog standard two tar units of skeletons or zombies a hard unit of Grave guard a couple of packs of wolves and prehaps a bonus banshee. I mean come on are these armies buried pre-packaged waiting to be ressurected.

If I pay £10 or whatever for my army book then I want to use it (otherwise whats the point I can just copy someone elses bog standard army), and that means as long as it has some narrative rational behind it and is legal then I can make what ever army I want.

So say YES to diversity make an army that isn't the norm. It may lose it may win but try it without fear of being labelled as a piece of diary product.

Complaints of cheesyness these days are generally unfounded except when a player creates an army SPECIFICALLY to destroy another players army then that is paramount to cheating.

Incidentally I don't think this guys Zombie army would be much good but that is beside the point......

 

[aufde]

What army do you run against him?

I play hordes of chaos. I don't mind the army, but my friend, who plays lizardmen thinks its cheesy.

 

[Master_Bungle]

I agree with you there Berny Mac. I have started to notice that a lot of lists for certain armies end up being (almost) the exact same. Also, it is more fun having a 'different' army as you can create and cool and unique background for it. It only becomes a problem when people go to extremes (but still legal). For instance, say a Lizardmen player decides that his army will just take as much magic power as it can, because it makes sense in the fluff and is 'different'. Then you are faced with a 2nd Generation Slaan with Temple Guard, and 2 lvl 2 Skink Priests...I know that this army is by no means unbeatable, but against an army with relatively little magic defence or even normal magic defence (say 5 dispel dice and a scroll (for 2000pt game by the way, I assume that is reasonable average)) they would not be able to stand up to that kind of magic (with the right magic items, that is 11 Power Dice with the ability to conserve 2 dispel dice from your own magic phase for use as power next time, and extra free dice for each spell, +1 to cast blah blah blah...You see where I am going.....The game is gonna be no fun.). I do think that armies should vary a lot more than they do, but chances are, if they vary far from the norm, chances are they will end up pretty unbalanced and unable to stand up to varying foes. I would imagine that is why so many lists are fairly similar (I know my lists are pretty bog standard for my Lizardmen and Dark Elves, and it bothers me that it is hard to think up an original story for the army because of that, but I personally prefer playing the game to any other aspect of Warhammer (such as painting and modelling). (Although I really do like having fluff for an army....makes it more fun). However (back to the point....) I like to have armies that can stand up to varying opponents without maximizing certain strengths of an army to the extreme, hence I (unintentionally) end up with an almost 'bog standard' army, like you said.... As much as I would like to make a really unique army, it is deceivingly hard to do without making it really unbalanced or 'cheesy' (and therefore, no fun for my opponent, and hence myself...). Oh well...

EDIT:

I play hordes of chaos. I don't mind the army, but my friend, who plays lizardmen thinks its cheesy.

lol check out the thread in the Hordes of Chaos section about mortal chaos being claimed as cheesy. Hehe, I think that's funny

 

[Visitor Q]

I agree with you there Berny Mac. I have started to notice that a lot of lists for certain armies end up being (almost) the exact same. Also, it is more fun having a 'different' army as you can create and cool and unique background for it. It only becomes a problem when people go to extremes (but still legal). For instance, say a Lizardmen player decides that his army will just take as much magic power as it can, because it makes sense in the fluff and is 'different'. Then you are faced with a 2nd Generation Slaan with Temple Guard, and 2 lvl 2 Skink Priests...I know that this army is by no means unbeatable, but against an army with relatively little magic defence or even normal magic defence (say 5 dispel dice and a scroll (for 2000pt game by the way, I assume that is reasonable average)) they would not be able to stand up to that kind of magic (with the right magic items, that is 11 Power Dice with the ability to conserve 2 dispel dice from your own magic phase for use as power next time, and extra free dice for each spell, +1 to cast blah blah blah...You see where I am going.....The game is gonna be no fun.). I do think that armies should vary a lot more than they do, but chances are, if they vary far from the norm, chances are they will end up pretty unbalanced and unable to stand up to varying foes. I would imagine that is why so many lists are fairly similar (I know my lists are pretty bog standard for my Lizardmen and Dark Elves, and it bothers me that it is hard to think up an original story for the army because of that, but I personally prefer playing the game to any other aspect of Warhammer (such as painting and modelling). (Although I really do like having fluff for an army....makes it more fun). However (back to the point....) I like to have armies that can stand up to varying opponents without maximizing certain strengths of an army to the extreme, hence I (unintentionally) end up with an almost 'bog standard' army, like you said.... As much as I would like to make a really unique army, it is deceivingly hard to do without making it really unbalanced or 'cheesy' (and therefore, no fun for my opponent, and hence myself...). Oh well...

EDIT:



lol check out the thread in the Hordes of Chaos section about mortal chaos being claimed as cheesy. Hehe, I think that's funny

Its a fair point that if you choose a very different type of army from the normal (The example of magic heavy armies hads been used quite often) then you may well trounce some armies while fair badly against others. That is of course a risk you have to take. But look at it the other way, who decides the average balanced army? People talk about flexibility and that is important but ultimatly your army will never be able to deal with every threat 100% of the time. Essentially no army is really "balanced" in the sense of being able to deal with anything.

If for example we draw up a basic model of where your armies strengths lie on a scale of -1 0 and 1 i.e Bad Average Good your average generic army would look like this

Fast Cavelry:0
Heavy Cavelry:1
Light Infantry:1
Heavy Infantry:-1
Magic:0
Characters:0
Fear:-1

A varied or unconventional army simply stacks its points in one or two areas it doesn't really amke the army but or worse it simply makes it more obvious as to which armies it will lose or win against thus:
Fast cavelry:-1
Heavy cavelry:-1
Light Infantry:1
Heavy Infantry:-1
Magic:1
Characters:-1
fear:1

I hope this makes sense?

 

[Big_Canadian]

for the record to berny up the page. Just because a list is legal does NOT mean it isnt a cheesy army .

 

[Visitor Q]

I have already explained my point as to why a legal army isn't cheesy please expand your point Big Canadian.

 

[DavidWC09]

Well, what we each mean by cheesy may be slightly different. Perhaps a better word would be "unbalanced." I prefer balanced lists that make for competitive play with a variety of units. Having 8 power dice, before any bound items, at 1000 pts is unbalanced IMO. Despite the increased chance of a miscast, three lvl 2 magic users provides an overwhelming advantage in the magical phase, one that would be difficult to challenge by any army. I don't find those games enjoyable myself; even the most sportsmanly opponents tend to grimace.

Just because he runs all zombies shouldn't mean anything, but several people have pointed that out. What if he ran a more balanced list with his non-character points. If there were wolves and ghouls and skeletons, would it be cheesy then?

 

[Neferata]

You can have a legal list and still be cheesy IMO. One example would be taking as many DoW cannons as you have rare slots. VC doesn't need cannons to win. They are balanced in such a way that you don't need cannons to have a very powerful army, and adding them would just tip the scales. Cannons CAN be justified by fluff, and not go against the background. They could be thralls that your vampire has enchanted/enslaved from an empire army, etc. Most of the time, what people call a Cheesy list, is really just an unbalanced one, but there are some cases in which legal can be cheesy (especially in the 40k universe).

Now, in the case that started this thread, I'd say no, it is not Cheesy. Any time you max out on a core choice, you cant be called cheesy IMO. Core troops are weak, and they're supposd to make up a majority of your army...hence the term "core." As for having three level two necros (personally I dont see why anyone WOULDNT upgrade them to level 2), seems perfectly alright to me. I like a good healthy magic phase, that's what VC are known for (that and vampires). Kill off the necros and the army will fall (granted I know this is easier said than done).

Just tell your friend that thinks it is a cheesy army to wait and play him in a 2000+ point game (I personally feel that its not a 'real' warhammer battle until you reach at least 2000 points). At 2000 points he can only ad one more necromancer, and if he chooses to ad another necromancer (as opposed to a vampire), then you cant call that cheesy, then you got a themed army. Most armies at 2000 points should be able to deal with an all zombie/necromancer army, as they should have a substantial number of elite units to cut through the horde.

 

[Visitor Q]

You can have a legal list and still be cheesy IMO. One example would be taking as many DoW cannons as you have rare slots. VC doesn't need cannons to win. They are balanced in such a way that you don't need cannons to have a very powerful army, and adding them would just tip the scales. Cannons CAN be justified by fluff, and not go against the background. They could be thralls that your vampire has enchanted/enslaved from an empire army, etc. Most of the time, what people call a Cheesy list, is really just an unbalanced one, but there are some cases in which legal can be cheesy (especially in the 40k universe).

Now, in the case that started this thread, I'd say no, it is not Cheesy. Any time you max out on a core choice, you cant be called cheesy IMO. Core troops are weak, and they're supposd to make up a majority of your army...hence the term "core." As for having three level two necros (personally I dont see why anyone WOULDNT upgrade them to level 2), seems perfectly alright to me. I like a good healthy magic phase, that's what VC are known for (that and vampires). Kill off the necros and the army will fall (granted I know this is easier said than done).

Just tell your friend that thinks it is a cheesy army to wait and play him in a 2000+ point game (I personally feel that its not a 'real' warhammer battle until you reach at least 2000 points). At 2000 points he can only ad one more necromancer, and if he chooses to ad another necromancer (as opposed to a vampire), then you cant call that cheesy, then you got a themed army. Most armies at 2000 points should be able to deal with an all zombie/necromancer army, as they should have a substantial number of elite units to cut through the horde.

Ok I agree with you that Dogs of War are quite cheesy. But I think this is because they contravene my second point of Cheesy criteria, namely breaking the background. But "allies" aside.......

I agree that 2000pts is a good way of testing whether your army is "unfair" because your oppnent will have access to all of his troops choices (lords and expensive mosters etc) which can undermine your tactics.

IMO puting a huge number of your points into magic does give you a big advantage but no more than say spending all your points on a huge Knight regiment.
Or to put it another way the reason why it gives such a big advantage isn't because it is inherently more powerful, but because your opposition faces the same bog standard army every week that when he fights against something new he can't handle it either because tactically he isn't prepared or simply because his army is built around facing a certain type of opponent.

I do have to say though that it depends who your opponent is, taking something that is quite different or takes a bit of experience to handle against a complete newbee isn't fun. In that case I prefer to give my self a point handicap and take a "regular" army but if you are playing a veteran then whats the problem? He/she knows the rules he knows what he could be up against. As they say all's fair in love and war.